I'd say it's just the other way around; disc brakes are most useful for commuters, and least useful for dedicated race bikes, because you just don't go out racing when it's raining a lot (and you're typically on a closed course besides so there's less braking).
I do use a touring bike (basically a racing bike that isn't quite as aggressive) and I've ridden that all year round.
Ignore this comment. Year-round commuting is the prime reason to buy a bike with disc brakes. Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter? Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?
Anyone want to go back to drum brakes on their “commuter” car? Yeah, didn’t think so.
From my experience, stopping distance is usually dictated by road conditions more than the brakes. This is with 34mm wide tires, and properly adjusted brakes (a lot of times when people complain about rim brakes, the issue is that they are not working properly).
Side note: fenders are a must!
I'd much rather have a brake system that out performs the rest of the equation than not have enough stopping power.
Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.
This really says it all. When I am cycling to work, I am not trying out for the tour de france or trying to beat someone else's strava record.
> Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.
It doesn't matter if they are inferior. My regular disc brakes on my Ford Focus is inferior in every way compared to whatever they put on a Ferrari. However they are perfectly is sufficient and safe for driving to work and back.
The best argument you can make for discs vs traditional rim brakes would be that the modulation is slightly better.
It really annoys me that a lot of cyclists seem to push very expensive kit that for the commuter is completely unnecessary.
Why because you don't agree with it?
> Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter?
I dunno how you are doing this. A set of brake pads last quite a while usually. I have rims from the 1990s I am still using.
> Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?
Your stopping distance is more about how much grip you got on the road from the tyres. You can easily lock the wheel with a rim brake, especially if you have a good set of dual pivot or V-brakes.
For commuting you don't need anything flashy or complicated (because it will be a magnet for thieves). I literally get a basic but decent bike. If the parts are basic and ubiquitous you can go to any bike shop and get it repaired or by the parts yourself. If you have fancy equipment, then it more difficult to buy a replacement.
When I was commuting on the bike still, I used an old 90s mountain bike with V-brakes and I converted it to Single Speed (the gears were knackered) and stuck some touring tyres on there. However I was cycling in Manchester which is mostly flat. It really depends where you are.
Also, even if they did. Replacing a 800 Euro bike once per two years is peanuts compared to owning a car or taking public transport.
Replacing a 2k usd bike every 2 years in addition to paying for car while I try to work into cycling is a big cost. I'm a big person, I've had pretty much every rim but velocity touring rims fail due to weight and stress, and rim brakes made this worse and fail faster, it's also real shady to have a rim crack while you're riding it. Discs completely remove that from the equation.
Cable discs, while better than rims, still suck. I feel unsafe riding anything but hydraulics, even on the road.